1. Revocation of the first instance judgment.

2. The defendant, including the claim extended by this court, shall be the plaintiff 373,872.

I. The reasoning behind the judgment of the court of first instance that cited the judgment is as follows: (a) the relevant part of the reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance (including acts No. 5 through No. 6) is the same as that of the relevant part of the judgment of the court of first instance (including acts No. 2, No. 5 through No. 6, No. 2), and the main sentence of Article 8(2) of the Administrative Litigation Act, and Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act.

C. The "attached Form 2" in attached Forms 15 and 20 shall be raised to "attached Form 2".

The third parallels 2 to 4 are as follows.

D. The appraisal results of the appraiser L of the first instance trial (hereinafter “the appraisal results of the first instance trial”) and the appraisal results of the appraiser W of the first instance trial (hereinafter “the appraisal results”): The appraisal results of the first instance trial are as shown in the “amount of the first instance trial” in the attached Table 2. - The appraisal results of the first instance trial are as shown in the “amount of the first instance trial” in the attached Table 2. The appraisal results of the first instance trial are as follows: as stated in the “amount of the first instance trial” in the attached Table 2: as stated in the “amount of the first instance trial,” and as indicated in the “amount of the first instance trial,” the results of the appraisal in the first instance trial, the results of the appraisal in the first instance trial, and the purport of the entire pleadings.” The “amount of the first instance trial deposit of the

Note 5, 6'A 1, 2, and 5, each number of subparagraphs B and B, including a number, shall be deemed to be “Nos. 5 and 6.” The fifth page of the 5th page “Notice.”

“A” is the following:

“Arred”

In this regard, the defendant alleged that the plaintiff was known to X, who is an employee of the Korea Appraisal Board, but he was not an employee of the defendant, and therefore, he did not have the right to receive his intent of reservation. However, X was in charge of the above work as the director of the Korea Appraisal Board entrusted with the affairs related to compensation for the urban development project of this case, and therefore, is entitled to receive the objection to the receipt of the deposit money of this case.